• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State laws that violate the US Constitution

The Federalist was published with the intent to sway opinion towards ratification of the Constitution (also to impact and further inform future constitutional change/question). However, the authors were not revealed to the public until well after the ratification. It's not strictly a "founding document", but more an insight into the minds and arguments from which the Constitution was formed.

To return to the original thread topic, in my own reading of those laws and the Constitution (to include the Bill of Rights), I believe those state laws are unconstitutional. Atheists have a place in givernment (as long as they are American atheists). Were it otherwise George Washington may not have become the first POTUS, or held office for long. He came later in life to being a diest (AFAIK he never became a Christian).
 
yes a "webpage" with the original documents for you to read

The Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, the little that was found to work in the Articles was included in the Constitution, most of it was thrown out.

Federalist Papers are seen as "founding documents" by most historians, maybe not by those who choose to ignore their relevance and frequent citation at times of political strife.

The documents listed did 'found' this nation, for without them their would be no United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war and rebellion with little in it that has become law in these United States. It did not 'found' this nation in any legalistic understanding of foundation.

You cite the beginning of the second paragraph in the Declaration as 'proof' of the Founding Fathers intentions and beliefs, yet for some reason there is zero mention of any Creator in the Constitution, instead we have the 3rd paragraph of Article VI which tells us there will be no religious tests for political office.

It just might be that those who created this nation had a much closer experience of state-supported churches and said churches interference in the political process than any of those who today babble on about this "christian nation". Maybe that is why they kept religion out of the actual founding documents, they knew how bad things could be.


oh yeah - and your Jefferson quote is still a fake

Of course the Declaration of Independance founded the nation in a legal aspect. It list the reason, grievances, and the reason upon which the action being taken. And then named the nation.
 
Of course the Declaration of Independance founded the nation in a legal aspect. It list the reason, grievances, and the reason upon which the action being taken. And then named the nation.


I do not think you will find anyone with legal/historical training who supports your assertion
 
The Federalist was published with the intent to sway opinion towards ratification of the Constitution (also to impact and further inform future constitutional change/question). However, the authors were not revealed to the public until well after the ratification. It's not strictly a "founding document", but more an insight into the minds and arguments from which the Constitution was formed.

To return to the original thread topic, in my own reading of those laws and the Constitution (to include the Bill of Rights), I believe those state laws are unconstitutional. Atheists have a place in givernment (as long as they are American atheists). Were it otherwise George Washington may not have become the first POTUS, or held office for long. He came later in life to being a diest (AFAIK he never became a Christian).

I think far too much energy is being wasted by non-Christians in trying to prove that none of our Founder were Christian. What's the point? Well it makes them feel good about themselves I suppose. Even a deist is a far cry from an atheist, or Buddhist or Hinduist, or a believer in relativism. I don't think there is any doubt, but more stubborness, in the minds of these people about whether this country was more Christian than anything else. The fact that they formed a "secular" government only means that there was enough respect for individual liberty and enough diversity in even the Christian sects, that they considered freedom of religion paramount. Remember that many early settlers came here to escape England's Church which was Christian. So our founders being Christians can most certainly go hand in hand with the formation of a secular govt. And yes the Enlightenment had it's own level of influence, no doubt about it. But the American culture was long established before the Enlightenment made its way over here.

As to the topic, no legal religious test is allowed for holding office. Many of the state constitutions were in place prior to the federal one, and at the time the founders were not going to try and dictate to the states on their internal affairs.
 
I think far too much energy is being wasted by non-Christians in trying to prove that none of our Founder were Christian. I don't know where you got such a notion unless it comes from the all too common worldview of many who call themselves 'conservative, an attitude that says there are only two sides to every point of contention when in reality there is a spectrum of views. Some of the Founders were solid Christian believers, some were deists and there were some who saw religion as necessary, not because they personally believed in it but because they saw it as essential to control the lower classes "baser nature"

What's the point? The "point" is an attempt to show others that the rather simplistic view of the Founding Fathers that is promoted by far too many preacher-types is just a bunch of crap

Well it makes them feel good about themselves I suppose. Even a deist is a far cry from an atheist, or Buddhist or Hinduist, or a believer in relativism. I don't think there is any doubt, but more stubborness, in the minds of these people about whether this country was more Christian than anything else. The fact that they formed a "secular" government only means that there was enough respect for individual liberty and enough diversity in even the Christian sects, that they considered freedom of religion paramount. Well duh, the Founding Fathers had much more personal experience with the degree of animosity between the various Christian faiths than most modern Americans can understand. The basic point of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was to emphasize that the new Constitution meant the Baptists would no longer be forced to support the Connecticut state church. This was the situation in several of the 13 states, where there was a state church supported by taxes paid by all citizens.

Remember that many early settlers came here to escape England's Church which was Christian. So our founders being Christians can most certainly go hand in hand with the formation of a secular govt. True and the Founders had personal knowledge of the animosity between the various Christian beliefs. The Puritans, so called because they were "Pure Christians", were amongst the most bigoted against those who did not belong to their church, they executed Quakers and Baptists who entered Massachusetts. This policy of intolerance led one of their ministers to leave Massachusetts and move to what is now Rhode Island to establish a more tolerant settlement.

And yes the Enlightenment had it's own level of influence, no doubt about it. But the American culture was long established before the Enlightenment made its way over here. Modern Americans find it difficult to understand just how much separation existed within colonial society, and early America too, between those we may call the landed gentry and the majority of the white population - nevermind the gap that existed between those of European descent and those from Africa and First Nations people. Almost all of the Founders would have been considered upper class, university educated folk, who had very different life experiences from most citizens.

As to the topic, no legal religious test is allowed for holding office. Many of the state constitutions were in place prior to the federal one, and at the time the founders were not going to try and dictate to the states on their internal affairs.

None of the state constitutions now in force date back to the period before the ratification of the Constitution.
 
None of the state constitutions now in force date back to the period before the ratification of the Constitution.

Except, you know, the Massachusetts constitution, which is 7 years older than the federal one and was used as a model for it.
 
None of the state constitutions now in force date back to the period before the ratification of the Constitution.

Here's the most irrelevant things you've said. Has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
 
Here's the most irrelevant things you've said. Has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

answer to my statement
Originally Posted by Somerville
None of the state constitutions now in force date back to the period before the ratification of the Constitution.

Which was a reply to American's earlier claim
Many of the state constitutions were in place prior to the federal one, and at the time the founders were not going to try and dictate to the states on their internal affairs.


so, I don't think I was totally irrelevant, even though I was wrong about the Massachusetts constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom